2025 Empire Case File
Introduction
It’s a cold December afternoon at Empirion State University. But the crowd gathered at Sapphire Plaza is burning with conviction. Students chant. Drummers beat a steady rhythm. And at the top of the staircase, Professor Campbell Oskee raises a microphone to their lips.
“We are not here to decorate their stage. We are here to dismantle the illusion of neutrality. And we will not stop.”
The crowd roars in response. It’s a moment of passion, protest, and purpose — a fiery denunciation of ESU’s decision to invite Senator Mackenzie Hamm to speak at the upcoming graduation ceremony.
Over the last year, Senator Hamm has gained notoriety as a controversial figure throughout the state. ESU’s decision to invite Senator Hamm to speak at commencement stemmed from their connection to the school — as a public official working in the Empirion state government, Hamm was touted as one of ESU’s most esteemed alumni. But recently, Senator Hamm has come under fire for drafting new laws that would authorize the use of public indigenous lands for private corporate developments.
To many, Hamm’s policies were deemed human rights issues and historical injustices. So on December 11, 2024, Oskee, a lecturer of history at ESU, uses this opportunity to call out “the desecration of land, the silencing of indigenous voices, and the complicity of this institution.” The speech goes viral. The next semester, Oskee is fired.
Now, the former professor is suing Empirion State University for wrongful termination.
The Plaintiff’s Case: Fired for Speaking Out
Oskee argues that they were terminated not because of job performance, but because the University sought to silence a voice it found inconvenient. According to Oskee, the firing was retaliation for exercising protected First Amendment rights. Their case rests on three key points:
The Speech Was Protected. Oskee’s remarks on the steps of Griffin Hall — and on social media before and after the protest — were made as a private citizen speaking on matters of public concern. These included indigenous sovereignty, environmental policy, and academic responsibility. Under United States Supreme Court precedent, Oskee argues, this speech is constitutionally protected.
No Disruption to University Operations. Oskee insists that there is no evidence their words interfered with classroom learning or university functions. Instead, they argue that Empirion State retaliated not because of disruption, but because it disapproved of the message.
A Chilling Effect. Oskee contends that their firing sends a dangerous message to other faculty and students: criticize power, and you may be silenced. They claim the university has created an environment where ideological conformity is rewarded — and dissent punished.
The Defense’s Case: Not About Speech, But About Standards
Empirion State University paints a very different picture. The administration argues that the decision to fire Oskee had nothing to do with protected speech and everything to do with their failure to fulfill basic job responsibilities.
ESU offers several justifications:
Neglect of Teaching Duties. Students reported canceled classes, missed office hours, and a classroom atmosphere described as hostile or unwelcoming to differing viewpoints.
Inappropriate Social Media Conduct. ESU points to a series of provocative posts Oskee made on the social media platform X — including posts referencing revolutionary violence and directly addressing Senator Hamm — as evidence of conduct unbecoming a faculty member. The University argues these posts blurred the line between professional and personal, and risked harming the school’s reputation.
Disruption of University Events. ESU claims Oskee played a central role in escalating tensions during the “No Hamm” protest, which ultimately devolved into property damage and personal injuries. Though Oskee was not accused of committing violence, the University argues that Oskee’s rhetoric contributed to a breakdown in campus order.
To the university, this is not a free speech case — it’s a case about professionalism, responsibility, and the integrity of our public institutions.
The Pretrial Oral Argument: Where Speech Meets the Workplace
At the heart of this legal showdown is a constitutional debate over the limits of free expression for public employees. The pretrial oral argument centers on whether Oskee’s social media posts — some of which referenced public protests, quoted Che Guevara, and warned Senator Hamm that “the people are watching your every move” — are protected speech or grounds for termination.
Oskee’s legal team argues the posts are protected under the First Amendment because they address public issues, were made as a private citizen, and caused no disruption. They contend the University’s attempts to use these posts against Oskee amount to unconstitutional retaliation.
Empirion State counters that the posts were made in Oskee’s capacity as a university professor, referencing “my students” and featuring the ESU name and seal. The defense insists that Oskee’s blending of personal activism and professional identity undermined campus stability and justified termination — especially given the timing and tone of the posts just before the protest.
The legal question before the court: Where does academic freedom end, and institutional accountability begin?
Why Free Speech? Why Now?
One of the most pressing questions facing society today is: what are the limits of free speech in public institutions? As part of Empire’s mission to educate, connect, and empower, this year’s case topic was selected to encourage a discussion about the importance of the freedom of speech in our country’s history, as well as its evolving significance in our world today.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects every person’s right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. In other words, the First Amendment is about the fundamental right to freedom of expression. And at its core, the First Amendment seeks to protect political speech – including that which is critical of our government and its agents. Accordingly, content- based discrimination of speech by the government is the chief evil against which the First Amendment was designed to protect.
The Founders recognized that if the government can make policies about which subject matters or viewpoints are permitted and those which are prohibited, then free expression would cease to exist. The First Amendment is a direct response to this danger.
As society grapples with polarized politics, digital platforms, and growing protests across collegecampuses, this case asks students to explore where universities should draw the line. Is a university a marketplace of ideas, or a workplace with standards? Can you be a scholar and a protester at once? And when does speaking out become crossing a line?
Oskee v. Empirion State University is about more than the trial. It’s a test of the Constitution, a chance to reexamine the meaning of free speech in a divided world.
We hope you enjoy Oskee v. Empirion State University!
Nicholas Cotter & Christian Cotter
2025 Case Committee Co-Chairs